1. Title, director and release year?
Addicted to Plastic
Ian Connacher
2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film addresses how our culture is dependent on plastic, we use it in our everyday life, but even though it is so important in all of the products we use, we throw almost throw every single piece of plastic away, and it doesn’t decompose. Every single piece of plastic that was ever produced is still sitting around the Earth, polluting the land, water, farms, and pretty much everything and everyone in this world.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film talks about how plastic affects all life on Earth, even people that don’t use plastic are affected by its harmful chemicals and how it never degrades and constantly stays on the earth’s surface. The water is greatly affected, in one of the opening scenes we see scientists that can scrape nets just across the surface of the water and still picks up an incredible amount of plastic pellets that are just sitting on the surface of the water.
This goes into how plastic is not recycled, and how it is just a throw-away product in our society. This has made our society become just that, throw away – all of our purchases are plastic in some way and we just throw them away, or get new technologies of them without thinking that what we do have still works probably just fine. Of course, this touches on the consumerism and how we just want more of everything, and yet throw it away.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The statistics that were given throughout the movie were extremely compelling. The numbers were almost difficult to understand because some of the numbers were just so staggering, however, understand the problem, it is completely believeable o 46,000 pieces of plastic are floating per square mile of ocean o There are ten times more plastic that there are natural food for marine animals § The animals are eating the plastic rather than the food and it’s obviously doing damage to the species § Bioaccumulation takes effect- where the smaller animals eat the plastic, then the bigger animals eat them, and then we end up eating them and as a result we are basically eating the chemicals in the plastic that the smaller fish ate
- The explanation of nurdles was very disheartening o These are the small pieces that the animals are eating and they look exactly like the food that small animals eat (fish eggs)
- It’s so surprising the little amount of plastic that is actually recycled properly o There is less than 40% of plastic that is properly treated for recycling and only 2 of the seven types of plastic can actually be fully recycled and all the other ones are just filling up the landfills and being dumped in the waters
- In Denmark they are already recycling 90% of their plastics. There is no surprise that the Danish are at the top of recycling the most since they are usually so environmentally conscious, but I don’t understand why the rest of the world doesn’t follow their lead.
- Patagonia clothing company o I really liked their overview of the company and how they are recycling plastic into a functioning product § Why can’t we make more things out of plastic if we are already doing things like making jackets and clothes?
- It is so depressing that Kenya calls the plastic bag their country’s flower. No one should have that much pollution in their country, but as seen in many other examples, the poor are kept poor and the developed countries basically ignore their needs
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I didn’t appreciate when the movie talked about the biodegradable plastics, I felt like they were talking like it was going to solve all the problems, but they did not discuss what would happen if we released all of that carbon and water into the environment. On such a large scale, what would this mean for our water situation, since we are at a point where too much fresh water is getting into the salt water oceans? I wanted more information on what this would mean for the rest of the environment and if there would be any way that we would be able to counteract some of those consequences?
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- When the movie discussed the animals eating the plastic, this made me think of some pictures that I saw online of birds that were decaying and their stomachs were filled with plastic bottles and pieces o It didn’t even look like these pieces could have fit into the bird’s mouth, but obviously they did and it had to have done harmful things to them § I’m curious any of the harmful effects were passed down to their offspring, or what it is doing to this type of bird
- I’m interested into looking in to Patagonia company, even though it is more expensive, it’s worth the cost of recycling and taking some of the plastic out of the environment. Also, this makes me more interested in looking into more recycled/organic clothes in the future
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is best for the average American. With the use of the cartoons/animations to explain some of the topics, and how they did not go into detail about some of the more scientific parts of the problem. This does a good job with the common public to show the problem and to show the huge scale it is on, especially talking about the issues at home as well as the world issues that are associated with these problems. This would help the general public understand that even though they may not see a landfill full of plastic every day, or experience seeing plastic in the water, it is happening and we have to do something about it.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- There were some scientists that talked about not using some chemicals/materials in their labs to save plastic and other harmful materials. Even though this is good that this recycling is happening on a small scale, there needs to be better large scale ideas to try and stop/solve these issues
- There are many companies that are trying to produce alternatives that can substitute for plastic. They talked about one in Australia that is having success with different types of materials. Again, this needs to be on a much larger scale with immediate solutions that can be placed on a large market.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This would have been a much more educational movie if the director/producer did not skip over some of the more complicated parts of the science of the situation. I understand that some of it is very complicated and might not appeal to the public, but to be more educational it would have been much more worthwhile to go into more detail about some of the scientific topics of the movie.
Addicted to Plastic
Ian Connacher
2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film addresses how our culture is dependent on plastic, we use it in our everyday life, but even though it is so important in all of the products we use, we throw almost throw every single piece of plastic away, and it doesn’t decompose. Every single piece of plastic that was ever produced is still sitting around the Earth, polluting the land, water, farms, and pretty much everything and everyone in this world.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film talks about how plastic affects all life on Earth, even people that don’t use plastic are affected by its harmful chemicals and how it never degrades and constantly stays on the earth’s surface. The water is greatly affected, in one of the opening scenes we see scientists that can scrape nets just across the surface of the water and still picks up an incredible amount of plastic pellets that are just sitting on the surface of the water.
This goes into how plastic is not recycled, and how it is just a throw-away product in our society. This has made our society become just that, throw away – all of our purchases are plastic in some way and we just throw them away, or get new technologies of them without thinking that what we do have still works probably just fine. Of course, this touches on the consumerism and how we just want more of everything, and yet throw it away.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The statistics that were given throughout the movie were extremely compelling. The numbers were almost difficult to understand because some of the numbers were just so staggering, however, understand the problem, it is completely believeable
o 46,000 pieces of plastic are floating per square mile of ocean
o There are ten times more plastic that there are natural food for marine animals
§ The animals are eating the plastic rather than the food and it’s obviously doing damage to the species
§ Bioaccumulation takes effect- where the smaller animals eat the plastic, then the bigger animals eat them, and then we end up eating them and as a result we are basically eating the chemicals in the plastic that the smaller fish ate
- The explanation of nurdles was very disheartening
o These are the small pieces that the animals are eating and they look exactly like the food that small animals eat (fish eggs)
- It’s so surprising the little amount of plastic that is actually recycled properly
o There is less than 40% of plastic that is properly treated for recycling and only 2 of the seven types of plastic can actually be fully recycled and all the other ones are just filling up the landfills and being dumped in the waters
- In Denmark they are already recycling 90% of their plastics. There is no surprise that the Danish are at the top of recycling the most since they are usually so environmentally conscious, but I don’t understand why the rest of the world doesn’t follow their lead.
- Patagonia clothing company
o I really liked their overview of the company and how they are recycling plastic into a functioning product
§ Why can’t we make more things out of plastic if we are already doing things like making jackets and clothes?
- It is so depressing that Kenya calls the plastic bag their country’s flower. No one should have that much pollution in their country, but as seen in many other examples, the poor are kept poor and the developed countries basically ignore their needs
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I didn’t appreciate when the movie talked about the biodegradable plastics, I felt like they were talking like it was going to solve all the problems, but they did not discuss what would happen if we released all of that carbon and water into the environment. On such a large scale, what would this mean for our water situation, since we are at a point where too much fresh water is getting into the salt water oceans? I wanted more information on what this would mean for the rest of the environment and if there would be any way that we would be able to counteract some of those consequences?
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- When the movie discussed the animals eating the plastic, this made me think of some pictures that I saw online of birds that were decaying and their stomachs were filled with plastic bottles and pieces
o It didn’t even look like these pieces could have fit into the bird’s mouth, but obviously they did and it had to have done harmful things to them
§ I’m curious any of the harmful effects were passed down to their offspring, or what it is doing to this type of bird
- I’m interested into looking in to Patagonia company, even though it is more expensive, it’s worth the cost of recycling and taking some of the plastic out of the environment. Also, this makes me more interested in looking into more recycled/organic clothes in the future
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film is best for the average American. With the use of the cartoons/animations to explain some of the topics, and how they did not go into detail about some of the more scientific parts of the problem. This does a good job with the common public to show the problem and to show the huge scale it is on, especially talking about the issues at home as well as the world issues that are associated with these problems. This would help the general public understand that even though they may not see a landfill full of plastic every day, or experience seeing plastic in the water, it is happening and we have to do something about it.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- There were some scientists that talked about not using some chemicals/materials in their labs to save plastic and other harmful materials. Even though this is good that this recycling is happening on a small scale, there needs to be better large scale ideas to try and stop/solve these issues
- There are many companies that are trying to produce alternatives that can substitute for plastic. They talked about one in Australia that is having success with different types of materials. Again, this needs to be on a much larger scale with immediate solutions that can be placed on a large market.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This would have been a much more educational movie if the director/producer did not skip over some of the more complicated parts of the science of the situation. I understand that some of it is very complicated and might not appeal to the public, but to be more educational it would have been much more worthwhile to go into more detail about some of the scientific topics of the movie.